Again, because it's very important: infantry

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Hmm, kinda hard to describe the dynamics of a 100p map to someone who never played it... but I guess I' ll try.A 100p map has 4 core cities. I' ve upgraded IC' s to 5 there, infra to 1, two have barracks (2 and 3) and two have airfield-2. 5 resource provs are in the process of upgrading to infra-3. No other IC' s built in core.
      I think I played my last 100p map about 2 years ago.


      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      That means I control about 7 former major' s territories, and some minors. Landing in Africa now, but no significant ground there yet.
      At this point, most smaller maps would be ove at this point. That means you would control around 1/3 of the map in a 22p map.

      It seems to me that the dynamics of the smaller versus largest map is quite different. Different enough to make my commentaries about what @Hans A. Pils said about changing infantry invalid. Though for the maps I tend to play, the smaller and medium sized maps. The suggestion @Hans A. Pils makes would make absolutely no sense at all.


      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      I wonder why you exclude commando' s from your " 5 infantry types" , they function like inf in many ways!
      The 5 infantry types (infantry, militia, moto inf, mecha inf and paratroopers) have something in common that commandos do not have in common with them. They all cost 1300 (mecha cost 1200) manpower and have relatively high upkeep costs while their power output is quite low.

      Commandos cost much less manpower, give a very big power output in return for manpower invested for far less upkeep than the 5 infantry types. They are well worth the manpower they cost while this is not the case with the 5 infantry types. Also, their being able to be built only in the capitol caps their strength quite enough. So commandos are just to much of a different breed to include among what counts as infantry (imho).

      So you have 49 aircraft in interceptors and tacs combined and only 11 infantry. Their initial manpower cost look like this:

      11 infantry: 14,300 manpower

      49 aircraft: 19,600 manpower

      The 11 infantry have 35.75 worth of planes in them in terms of manpower.

      Now I am quite sure that it is quite simple to see that in terms of damage output, infantry is not a very good investment manpower wise.

      Also, the 11 infantry have 165 HP when in full health. The 35 (rounded down) aircraft would have 700 HP. So in terms of HP, manpower is again not very well invested in infantry.

      You could do the same when comparing them with SP arty. Having 11 infantry means you did not build 28.6 SP artillery. Again growing the same amount of manpower into more HP and power output. This time with a mechanic that lets you avoid damage all together.

      Even if you add the food and oil consumption to this, the oil expenses are well worth the damage output and extra HP.

      Infantry is just never a good investment for your manpower. So, making them cost more initial manpower when training them is not a good thing.
    • Edepedable wrote:

      Infantry is just never a good investment for your manpower. So, making them cost more initial manpower when training them is not a good thing.
      Again, you continue to pretend that all other resources except manpower are free. It's like saying that infantry has infinite power-per-oil, because it has zero oil cost, so that it is infinitely better to build than tanks or planes. It is true, but also highly misleading.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • On the other hand, I often find myself low on oil because my heavy use of tanks, SP AA, air and naval units ... Finished my first 7 games undefeated (2 solo, 5 coalition wins) in 22-player tutorial board with a strategy of initially developing economy and a high tech mobile army ... The resource issue seems to get worst as you conquer other provinces. I wish they boosted productivity up a notch from 25% to 30%. Many players that seem to go inactive because of the lack of resources issue, which often requires gold purchases. Thus I find myself fighting AI managed countries most of the time ... :tumbleweed:
    • To those suggesting a separate research tree for each map: OK, indeed many units are a bit more useful on some maps than they are on others. I was simplifying that a bit in my last post. But separate research trees would for sure require bigger implementation and balancing efforts and also blow up complexity of the game in a unlovely fashion for a rather small benefit. So let's keep thinking about easier improvements.

      To Edepedable: My proposal would make infantry more common also on smaller maps. Only not with your playstyle (not meant in an evaluative way). But that's not bad in my eyes: If a country invests more resources on unit production than on economical buildings, it's realistic it can effort to produce heavy weapons (at least AT, AA or artillery guns) for all it's soldiers for a while. My proposal would reflect that.


      war-play wrote:

      this question has long been resolved in Supremacy 1914
      It's true this aspect is working better in S1914 than it does in CoW. In S1914 you need only manpower (although I know it's called differently) to produce infantry and no resources at all. My proposal would push CoW a bit in that direction, without the need to change game mechanics.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:



      war-play wrote:

      this question has long been resolved in Supremacy 1914
      It's true this aspect is working better in S1914 than it does in CoW. In S1914 you need only manpower (although I know it's called differently) to produce infantry and no resources at all. My proposal would push CoW a bit in that direction, without the need to change game mechanics.
      My proposal is more simply.
      Just take the best of S1914 and CoW :thumbsup:
      It's really works :D

    • BMfox wrote:

      Going back to the original subject of the thread.

      I think it's a good change that food is used instead of goods for research. In the early and mid game i had to sell my food to buy goods. Prices of goods spiking up leaving me empty handed with no more cash to spare. Now there is a good balance between the use food and goods which leaves your money untouched and usable for other purposes. On top of it players who don't know to build an economy will be forced to do it know because if not they will be in the red very soon.

      The biggest disadvantage is that the use of infantry will be more difficult to use and producing mechanized infantry will become more challenging. Then again, players who take the time to invest in an economy will pluck the fruits of their labor and have an important advantage.
      After some period of inactivity for external reasons, first chance to check on the new research system and its' impacts. I specifically chose a 2-food country in the 22 map in order to check, and the results are very predictable:

      • As BMFox says, the market picture is dramatically different. Food has practically disappeared from the market, as also happens with Metal. This obviously depends on the number of active players in the map, but in the small maps it doesn't need so many of them in order to extinguish all small AI quite fast - then no chance to see Food in the market.
      • That takes us to the second point. No matter what economy you build (and trust me, I am quite good at it) with a 2-core Food there is simply no chance to dream of building infantry. MI are completely and utterly out of the question, unless you want to completely be left backwards in research. Not only that, even "ordinary" infantry-class units become much more of a consideration (due to maintenance cost).


      Overall the change is very interesting (I can say that it changes the game, which is a challenge that I like), but seriously I believe this is a distortion of war-gaming at that time.
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Edepedable wrote:

      Infantry is just never a good investment for your manpower. So, making them cost more initial manpower when training them is not a good thing.
      Again, you continue to pretend that all other resources except manpower are free. It's like saying that infantry has infinite power-per-oil, because it has zero oil cost, so that it is infinitely better to build than tanks or planes. It is true, but also highly misleading.
      No I do not. Its just that the other resources exept manpower are at least buyable. Sure never in the quantaties and the price you want, but at least its an option. The whole possibility to be bought does not exist for manpower, and so it is more rare.

      Edepedable wrote:

      Even if you add the food and oil consumption to this, the oil expenses are well worth the damage output and extra HP.

      Infantry is just never a good investment for your manpower. So, making them cost more initial manpower when training them is not a good thing.
      That is not true at all, it is very easy to see that the additional HP and damage output planes and tanks do DESPITE their cost in oil, (and any other resource for that matter) outweigh their advantage. Its hard to reduce the specifics to only manpower because of course not every resource is spent equally for each unit. Though despite this, infantry is to costly in terms of initial manpower.

      I really do not understand how you can argue for making infantry more expensive in additional manpwoer. They used to be 1500 and no one ever built them. And if you do favor an ''economy first'' type strategy then every unit needs to be as strong as possible, so you still won't make any infantry even if you have the manpower to build them.